The Unlovely
Another illustration, I think, of leftism leading the credulous to failure and unhappiness.
Update, via the comments:
As so often with Laurie and her peers, it’s not entirely clear whether this is what she actually believes or it’s just something she feels obliged to say for effect, to appear cleverly non-conformist, and thereby conform with the expectations of her leftist peer group. Though I suppose the level of sincerity barely matters. In either case, she would have to be a fool. Still, you have to marvel at the insistence that one of the most basic and universal of human feelings is merely an elaborate ruse “designed” by some unspecified patriarchal cabal. And you have to wonder how this “systemic lie” might explain the romantic feelings of gay couples.
Dark conspiracies aside, what stands out for me is Laurie’s ostentatious use of the phrase “emotional labour” – a term that generally refers to employees being polite to customers and not having tantrums and meltdowns in the workplace. (One might substitute the word professionalism, but hey.) She implies that this kind of emotional self-possession is not only a form of gendered drudgery, imposed by men, but is also the basis of a loving – sorry, “loving” – relationship. Though this doesn’t remotely match any actual marriage I’m aware of. I was under the impression that one of the benefits of a lifelong loving relationship is that the occasional foul mood can be aired, accommodated and ultimately forgiven precisely because the other person loves you.
But again, I’m not convinced that Laurie actually believes any of the bollocks she mouths. Her pronouncements are reliably dissonant with her own behaviour, which suggests an instinctive hypocrisy on almost every issue she brings up. To take an obvious example, one of many, are we to believe that Laurie is deeply concerned by the “emotional labour” of polite male security staff – the ones who get randomly abused by Laurie’s sister, whom she then congratulates for her radicalism? Or does the “emotional labour” of polite men not count?
Give it a minute. You’ll figure it out. 🙂
Don’t want to figure it out. Want to be told.
To be fair, she’s not only very young, but she has grown up in the spotlight–rather like a pseudo-academic version of a child TV star.
“The Other Half” – hmmm, I prefer “Better Two Thirds”.
Or you could just call me Chris.
Welcome, “Geezer”.
Thanks, “Chris”.
Are you the “Better Two Thirds”?
Want to be told.
Felt the same way about Santa Claus once. I figgered it out. Though I was wrong about that Canadianne up above. That and butchering the spelling of Canadian. I do think Canadianne should be a word however. So you really can’t go by me. I could be wrong about Santa Claus.
Don’t want to figure it out. Want to be told.
Stamping your foot like that rocks the tables round here. And, as my mother used to say, “‘Iwant…’never gets”.
I could be wrong about Santa Claus.
That’s why I druther be told than figger it out.
Stamping your foot like that rocks the tables round here.
Ain’t stampin’. Just askin’.
To be fair, she’s not only very young
She turned 29 in September. Many people are holding down responsible jobs by that age and/or bringing up children. Laurie Penny, on the other hand, is frozen in a state of adolescent, self-regarding repudiation of bourgeois society and its capitalist ethos. Will she ever grow up?
[waves at dicentra]
Just got back from the movie. Totally agree.
To be fair, she’s not only very young…
As noted above, Laurie is almost 30, a grown woman. More to the point, she imagines herself as a public intellectual, an activist, a revolutionary, and, in her words, “a scholar.” She seems to imagine that her role in life, her righteous destiny, is to tell the rest of us how to live, from above. Hers will be “a new world order.” I see no reason to go easy on her. That would be patronising.
I’ve said it before: it has to be absolutely exhausting being Laurie Penny. Unless it’s a pose, constantly filtering everything through her tedious right-on prejudices must be very wearing. It’s a bit like being one of the more tiresome sorts of religious zealot who needs to know whether each and every thing is in accordance with dogma, like those mad Muslims who write to celebrity Imams asking if toothpaste is haram because Mo didn’t use it. One would almost feel sorry for her were it not for how baleful her prescriptions for the rest of us would prove to be if she ever got to enact them.
And Geezer, don’t be so importunate. If you are still in the dark then silly you. Besides, fussing about pronouns is something we make fun of round here.
“Romantic love is a systemic lie”
So Laurie Penny is Dr. Sheldon Cooper without the warm, charming, empathic personality.
If you are still in the dark then silly you.
Oh, dear! I didn’t intend to be importunate.
I visit this place because I admire David Thompson’s intelligence and sense of humor.
I didn’t realize that some questions are not to be asked here.
Geezer, the answer is very obvious and is not a mystery around here.
Chris, I was wondering only this morning (Sunday’s a bit slow in these parts) whether you ever commented here or existed in any cyber-sense. Nice to meet you, as it were.
the answer is very obvious and is not a mystery around here
As I said at the beginning, I’m new here. I’d like to hear it from the horse’s mouth. Is that too much to ask?
I’d like to hear it from the horse’s mouth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3yED7w1uu8
Just to be, you know, clear and stuff, I’m quite certain I have the Santa Claus thing nailed. I was just saying, in the grand scheme of things, with all the probabilities of all of what we know at this time about quantum physics, I could be wrong about Santa Claus. The thing is though, also in the grand scheme of things, I’m fine with that tinsey bit of uncertainty. What I’m not fine with is how spell check f’s with changing odd words like “tinsey” into “tinsel” but still has no problem with, apparently, any number of n’s I wanna put in the word Canadian. But sometimes, as the song from Frozen says, you just gotta let it go.
Chuffing hell, dicentra. Your Pinterest account now has almost 100,000 items, all scrupulously categorised. I’m tempted to sign up for an account just so I can marvel at the full extent of it.
You don’t need an account to gawk. o_O
Also see my new Pinterest account, wherein I attempt to collect at least one each of the species described in this tome.
Yes, I compulsively classify and categorize. My tech writing job provides plenty of opportunities to create relational databases to Keep Track Of All The Things.
It keeps me off the streets.
Feminism was started by fat and or ugly women.
I am fat and ugly and as anti-Feminist as it comes.
But thanks for assuming I’m hot. My avatar is a pretty pink flower, after all.
Laurie Penny is Dr. Sheldon Cooper
Sheldon Cooper isn’t evil: just a cartoon caricature of a severe case of Asperger’s Syndrome, played for laughs.
Although one of the best lines from the show is “He’s just one lab accident away from becoming a Super Villain.”
Oh, fer the sake of Pete: David is gay, as is his Other Half.
Not a secret; not a problem.
“David is gay, as is his Other Half.”
Both of them?
… and simultaneously.
Cheers
Feminism was started by fat and or ugly women.
Both untrue and ad hominen. Well done sir!
I’m assuming you start Feminism with the likes Gloria Steinem, Simone de Beauvoir, Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan, etc. Not seeing much fat there. The usual range of looks (when young, obviously).
In any case, play the ball, not the (wo)man.
On the whole the women who started Feminism had a point or two. Which is why we have taken on board much of what they campaigned for. In fact it is their success which has made it difficult for the likes of Penny Red. Because with things moving along reasonably well, she has to invent problems.
Feminism was started by fat and or ugly women.
http://henrymakow.com/upload_images/steinem.jpg
uh…no
Both of them?
[ Chokes on coffee. ]
Laurie’s latest pronouncement:
You see, when people mock Laurie, and they do, apparently it’s only because they’re fearful and angry at her insights, which, being brilliant, burn men to the bone. And no-one is ever laughing because she flatters herself continually and uses hugely tendentious terms in question-begging ways. As so many in the Indignant Sisterhood do. Often comically.
In Laurie’s world, one shouldn’t be amused by, or dismissive of, claims that (for instance) not being stroppy with customers and managing not to have daily meltdowns is a form of gendered oppression and therefore deserving of extra compensation. “I didn’t burst into tears in front of that difficult customer. I demand an extra £40.”
Saner people would, I think, tend to realise that being, say, a flight attendant entails putting up with a lot of minor irritations from bored and sometimes demanding passengers, and nonetheless being reassuring and polite. That’s pretty much the job and is widely understood. Patience and emotional self-possession are some of the skills it requires. In Laurie’s world, however, this is some kind of patriarchal outrage.
But again, I’m not convinced that Laurie actually believes any of the bollocks she mouths. Her pronouncements are reliably dissonant with her own behaviour, which suggests an instinctive hypocrisy on almost every issue she brings up. To take an obvious example, one of many, are we to believe that Laurie is deeply concerned by the “emotional labour” of polite male security staff – the ones who get randomly abused by Laurie’s sister, whom she then congratulates for her radicalism? Or does the “emotional labour” of polite men not count?
are we to believe that Laurie is deeply concerned by the “emotional labour” of polite male security staff – the ones who get randomly abused by Laurie’s sister, whom she then congratulates for her radicalism? Or does the “emotional labour” of polite men not count?
You should be a shrink, David. 🙂
You should be a shrink, David. 🙂
God, no. I don’t have the patience. I’d probably get fired on the first afternoon.
Or in a relationship context, the emotional labour of putting up with a demanding partner. Which no man has ever done, presumably. The concept of “high maintenance” is a myth.
But. My interpretation of the original tweet is that Laurie has been unlucky in love, is feeling a bit sorry for herself, as we’ve all done, and being Laurie, is expressing it in SJW-isms.
To be fair, she’s not only very young, but she has grown up in the spotlight–rather like a pseudo-academic version of a child TV star.
Very young? She’s 29. Jeez, I knew guys who were troop commanders in Iraq when they were 23. I was the general manager of a company in Russia when I was 29. She’s not 17 FFS.
Geezer, the answer is very obvious and is not a mystery around here.
It was to me. Not that it matters one jot.
It was to me.
I’ve wheeled in a comfy chair in case you need to sit down.
Gay male relationships raise important questions, such as this example: “Who Oppresses Who”?
Whether it should be “who” or “whom” I have no idea, and those that claim to know tend to be overly dogmatic.
Theo: I’m on a mobile so won’t quote your response, but will just take my original unsupported assertion with a tweak to the subject: “Theophrastus is a paedophile who raped a small boy last night.” I maintain it’s a lie, and you say otherwise. Ho hum.
“Who Oppresses Who”?
It seems odd to think of any functional relationship in terms of oppression, as if it were a default.
I’ve obviously been reading too much Laurie Penny. And not enough Grammar.
Or in a relationship context, the emotional labour of putting up with a demanding partner. Which no man has ever done, presumably.
High maintenance? Why, the very idea.
But again, I’m not convinced that Laurie actually believes any of the bollocks she mouths.
Let’s not forget that she has managed to parlay her drivel into a nice little earner. Some people will believe anything if it keeps the cheques rolling in. The existence of Laurie Penny doesn’t bother me, but the fact that she evidently has an audience is more of a worry.
And another thing: isn’t it odd that man-haters should spend so much of their time mouthing bollocks? Subconsciously acting out, perhaps?
Nemo
It’s an untruth, not a lie – unless there’s an intention to deceive. End of.
How many oblique quips does it take to reach a straightforward answer?
Quite a few, it seems.
[David just nods and smiles.]
—————————
“So, who is the husband, and who is the wife?”
“What do you mean? We’re both guys.”
“If you get divorced, who will pay the alimony, and who will collect it?”
When will those wedding bells be ringing out for Penny? I simply can’t imagine how this little peach hasn’t been snapped up by someone yet, I’m sure she’d make a delightful wife. Anyone fancy taking one for the team?
Theo: “End of.” Well now you’ve put it like that what choice do I have? It’s no lie that you’re a paedophile and bizarre relativist honesty isn’t the wonky-wheeled bicycle that the clown quarter of academia rides round on.
Apologies too if anyone thinks the paedo tag unnecessarily belligerent – I thought using it once would be enough, and never imagined that anyone called such would insist it’s not a lie!
And another apology if I appear a bit pushy for a lurker, but perhaps if I provide another example of ‘untruth’ it might seem less ranty: “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction and rockets capable of delivering them to Britain in 45 minutes”.
“…mouthing bollocks…
Ummm, I don’t think that means what I think it means in this context.
Speaking of gay folk who like skewering SJWs and feminists, do any of you lot follow Milo Yiannopoulos? I discovered him a month or so back and have been pretty impressed so far, mainly because he is causing cardiac arrest in people I don’t like.
@Theo and Nemo.
There has to be a moral component to what we call, “lying.” As Theo points out, people make innocent mistakes all the time in asserting things as true which are not. The moral problem arises when one makes an assertion with knowledge of its falsity (or willful ignorance as to whether the assertion is true or false) for the purpose of causing the recipient to accept the assertion as true and rely upon its truth.
Tim,
Milo was mentioned here not too long ago.
A yes, I remember the post now. But didn’t know about Milo then, I’ve since seen the debate. I hope he does some more, his speech at the end of that one was stirring stuff.